or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Is 5760 x 1440 dpi enough for Photo Printing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 5760 x 1440 dpi enough for Photo Printing?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
Looking for a Photo printer and just wondering if this is enough for alot or what ever else.


Also has any of you Used the Alpha Shield Hardware firewall protection.. if you have post your comments.
post #2 of 7
5760x1440 dots per inch?

- Xidius
post #3 of 7
That sounds like it's an Epson. In which case it's 5760dpi in total. Which is more than adequate - I had an Epson C62 until recently, and it quite easily printed out photo-quality pages. I now have a Canon i350, which has a lower dpi (4600 I think), and still there's no quality problems with photos.
Sometimes I tire of this world's ideosyncracies - can I get a transfer to another one please, with new and exciting ideosyncracies?
Reply
Sometimes I tire of this world's ideosyncracies - can I get a transfer to another one please, with new and exciting ideosyncracies?
Reply
post #4 of 7
Those number are all interpolated anyway.

Quite frankly, 300dpi is fine. I've done enough print & publishing to know. Chances are, your source material, i.e. your digital photos, aren't so high in resolution that there's any merit to having 1440dpi, even if your printer actually could do it. Sometimes a higher resolution printer will help avoid moire effects, but most printers these days have algorithms in their drivers that minimize these problems.

If you want better digital photos, the best way to do it is to buy a higher end camera. The Digital Rebel is a good deal. It has a CMOS sensor, a big lens, and the ability to store photos in RAW format. Then buy yourself a Phaser 8600 and you've got yourself a print shop. At 600dpi it does a better job than any ink jet I've ever seen at any reported dpi.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #5 of 7
Basically, it boils down to your preferences. At 5760x1440, you can still see the dots. And considering that you can't even reach that resolution unless you use coated paper, anything from a consumer printer is not true "photo quality". Also, don't forget that those printouts will fade much faster than a real photo. Depending on how you store it, it can fade in less than a year (Unless your printer uses Epson Ultrachrome.)

But as other here have mentioned, that is usually "good enough" for most people. You just need to see a printout for yourself and decide. I use offset machines and expensive color lasers at work but at home I am happy with my 7-color 1.8 picoliter Epson 970 (A non-U.S. model). It provides 90% of the quality with 1/15th of the cost of my work printers.

If you only want photo quality prints, order through iPhoto.

BTW, 300dpi is considered photo-quality for offset printing and dye-sub printing but not for inkjet. Since inkjet inks don't blend transparently like the other printing systems, inkjet dots need to be significantly smaller to produce a smooth gradient. The most important factor for inkjets is the droplet size rather than the dpi. 1.5 picoliter droplets or smaller is usually regarded as photo-quality but anything under 4 picoliters is close enough.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #6 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by BeigeUser
Basically, it boils down to your preferences. At 5760x1440, you can still see the dots.

I, personally, cant see the dots at that resolution. I looked at a few different scenes, the typical light areas, like skin, and black areas with lights, and couldnt see any dots. This was for the epsons, 860 etc, and canons, i350. I dont have any trouble seeing the dots on older models.

What I can still see is banding from the print head.

Its not strong, and I would be quite happy getting any of the current hi res printers.

ISTR that one of the printers is capable of mixing the colours before printing ( is that HP? ), and Id be interested in comments regarding that.

Canon seems to have the lowest running costs, cheap enough to beat getting prints from Kodak, however I havent seen any long life inks.
post #7 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by Derek
Looking for a Photo printer and just wondering if this is enough for alot or what ever else.


Also has any of you Used the Alpha Shield Hardware firewall protection.. if you have post your comments.

All the suggestions offered are fine, but first you should elaborate more on what you actually want to do.

1. A4, A3+ or bigger?
2. Colour only or b&w as well?
3. What will you do with the prints- display, frame, sell, stick in a folder/album?

I went through this exercise and here are my conclusions.

1. Epson is the best photo printer, though the gap is narrow
2. For most prints 1440 dpi is fine and you will have difficulty differentiating from 2880 dpi, let alone higher. Droplet size and how they are placed on the paper are being refined with every new printer.
3. For speed, Canons rule and their quality (as with HP) is very close to Epson.
4. Individual ink cartridges are more efficient but not necessarily more economical. I finalised on the Epson 1290S which uses a black and a 5-in-1 photo cartridge. The whole 5-in-1 costs the about the same as a single cartridge in the Epson 2100/2200 and about a quarter of the colour and photo cartridges for an HP.
5. For b&w you have the HP 7960 for A4, the Epson 2100/2200 for A3+, or almost any Epson if you go for third party solutions (I tried Lyson and have been very impressed).
6. You don't have to stick to the manufacturer's paper and ink, though if you print infrequently it makes sense. If you print frequently, try and standardise on a combination (and don't be afraid to try) and then think about getting custom profiles.
7. Photoshop can make a big difference. iPhoto is indispensable.

Enjoy.
HM

I like chocolate. Anytime.
Reply
HM

I like chocolate. Anytime.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Is 5760 x 1440 dpi enough for Photo Printing?